Will Imran also support martial law?

When the joint opposition would meet today, for giving possible deadline to the government over the Panama papers probe, it may also ask the PTI leadership to clarify its position on party chief Imran Khan's statement about people celebrating a martial law if imposed in Pakistan. The question is whether Imran himself would support any such action, which is very unlikely in today's Pakistan.

PTI leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who met opposition leader Syed Khursheed Shah on Monday, tried to clarify to some extent party's position. He said his party would not support any extra-constitutional action, though Imran himself has not clarified his statement.

His statement came at a time when the government and the opposition were close to an agreement over nomination of the Election Commission of Pakistan members, but difference exist on Panama leaks terms of reference (ToRs).

It is generally said that people distributed sweets whenever a martial law was imposed and it had always been welcome in the past. So, it is time to expose and break such a myth. Historically, it’s the other way round as all those who were removed through military rule regained power with people's support.

Another important aspect of this statement was that it had been given in Azad Kashmir, during an election rally. All political parties and central leaders acted in a highly irresponsible manner without keeping in view sensitivity of the situation in the backdrop of what is going on in the Indian-held Kashmir.

Yes, Imran's criticism of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is quite understandable and he might have a point when he said that democracy was not under threat from the army but from Nawaz Sharif. But saying that people would welcome martial law could either be a slip of tongue or over-exaggerated.

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), now an ally of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is well aware of the significance of this statement and the danger of passing such remarks just before the launch of any movement.

Such pro-martial law voices in the past were heard in 1977 during the PNA movement, followed by a famous letter, written by retired Air Marshal Asghar Khan, who was leading the movement, inviting military to take over.

From Field Marshal Ayub Khan to retire General Pervez Musharraf, the military dictators always looked for people's support and in the process tried to get legitimacy through their hand-picked judiciary and support from the parties, who hardly had any roots in masses.

There is no chance of martial law in the country, certainly not under General Raheel Sharif, whose popularity graph revolved around his firm resolve against terrorism and extremism and keeping army away from politics. Even when he was asked to play his role in resolving unresolved political matter during 2014 dharna, he rejected Imran Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri's demand for PM's resignation and was only ready to play the role of a guarantor.

Yes, it is true that some sections of society and supporters of those parties who demanded martial law distributed sweets in 1958, 1968, 1977 and 2012, but historically the majority sided with the popular mandate. Had the majority sided with military dictators, Ayub would not have used system like ‘Basic Democracy’ to get legitimacy or fraudulent means to defeat Fatima Jinnah in the presidential elections.

Ayub handed over power to General Yahya Khan, instead of handing it over to the National Assembly speaker and thus violated his own constitution, after months long protest movement against him. No sweets were distributed as one dictator was replaced by another.

PNA's popular urban-based political movements resulted in martial law. Sweets were distributed but only by the supporters of the PNA, but the popularity of martial law, General Ziaul Haq and the PNA itself were exposed within a week, when Bhutto was released and received by huge crowds, both in Karachi and Lahore.

Within weeks, it was clear that those who distributed sweets over military takeover were not in a position to win elections and after intelligence reports that the PPP would sweep, elections were postponed. In 1984, Zia in a bid to test his popularity used the Islamic card, in his referendum but hardly five per cent votes were cast.

No sweets were distributed on October 12, 1999, despite PPP's guarded welcome to military takeover as retired General Pervez Musharraf had not imposed martial law like 1977. Yes, sweets were distributed when, through a popular movement, the then deposed chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was reinstated in 2010. Sweets were distributed when Benazir Bhutto returned for the first time after self-exile in 1986, with thousands of people greeting her.

Historically, military dictators never remained popular, though had long tenures, mainly because of hand-picked judiciary's support and group of politicians, majority of whom looked towards them for their political base.

All those politicians, who were deposed through unconstitutional means or by imposing martial law, had always regained power through people's mandate, whenever they got a chance. Unlike in Turkey, people here don't take to the streets if martial law was imposed or elected governments removed through undemocratic means, but whenever they get the chance they showed their anger through ballot.

Imran himself had a bad experience of backing the military dictator when he supported Musharraf for two years in a hope that he would made politicians like the late Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif accountable. He had even voted for Musharraf in his 2001 referendum, before he withdrew his support after 2002, when he realised that he had only been ‘used’ by him against BB and Nawaz Sharif.

The military dictators had a history of dividing people's power through hand-picked politicians. They caused split in the popular parties as they did in the case of the PPP, the PML and even the MQM.

Imran emerged as a popular leader when he joined the popular lawyers’ movement. He got popularity because people were disappointed with the PPP and the PML-N governments. The PTI only became the second largest party in the country when the PPP, under Asif Ali Zardari, failed to deliver and was rejected in 2013 elections.

Imran and the PTI again committed a mistake when they showed high expectation of the ‘third umpire’, as a result he lost the support of other opposition parties. Thus, he has to be very careful in giving such statements and that too at a time when his party or the joint opposition is planning for street agitation.

It’s time for Imran Khan to learn a few lessons from the past. The AJK elections would be quite challenging both for him and his ally, the PPP, which has ruled AJK for five years. It would be interesting to see how much dent the PTI would cause to the PML-N and the PPP.

Pakistan is not Turkey, nor Nawaz Sharif is Tayyip Erdogan, but Pakistani parliament in 2014 had reposed its confidence and put its weight behind the system despite differences with the prime minister and the PML-N government.

Its time for Sharif to take all parties along on important matters and get himself and his family cleared from highest judicial forum, and avoid political confrontation. When it comes selecting between Sharif or PML-N and the opposition, people may join hands in large numbers with the joint opposition, but they would not welcome any extra-constitutional means to remove the government.

The real, ‘move on Pakistan’ means no martial law or military rule as all this is now a matter of the past or the previous Pakistan. Today, the judiciary and the media, despite problems, are different and believe that Pakistan can only move through democracy, supremacy of the constitution and good governance. For all this, Sharif has a responsibility to try and come close to Erdogan when it comes to economic development and people's welfare, but should not follow some of his anti-democratic policies, either.  The writer is the senior columnist and analyst of Geo, The News and Jang.